But Newton physics was the truth only at its time. It is challenged today. So is Einstein’s theory of relativity.

So, is there an absolute sustainable truth?

I would say the truth is any conceptagreedupon by all humanity at a point in time. It is sustainable only if and when we can freeze time.

Assume we assembled every human being into one large hall. They debated the meaning of x and came to an agreement. And then time froze. Nothing could change. I would say they found THE truth on that subject.

Since time cannot be frozen, and all humanity cannot debate a subject and arrive at a consensus, there is no absolute truth. Only subjective and temporary truth.

I am always intrigued when a person in a debate claims a monopoly over truth. “That is the truth”, he asserts.

We do not know what the truth is. No one knows. We each have our own belief about what constitutes the truth. But that belief can change over time or when confronted with compelling arguments.

All “truths” are subjective. Absolute truth is a theoretical construct which will never be realized.

If you agree with the above it should make you more flexible, open to opposite points of view, during an argument.

You cannot and should not sequester yourself in a “bunker of self-righteousness.”

I disagree that the truth is relative or based on any collective beliefs held by members of society. Perhaps I have misinterpreted your statement but this is what I believe are the implications of such a statement: there is no truth- no one will absolutely agree with each other at any one point in time. There will always be a
discordance of beliefs to some degree. It also means that if all of humanity were to believe the truth is something that was ultimately untrue, they could collectively cause it to be true. This would be illogical. The Truth is that which is unchangable, beyond the scope of human design. I believe that most everything that has been formed or shaped by human hands and curious minds has some degree
of fasleshhod incorporated into it- which, I think, is the point you are trying to make. The Truth surely exists and is real; however, a lot of what we call truth is based on human behaviour, which is an ever-spinning gyroscope.
I think a better word for the concept you are probing is belief. Are there absolute beliefs? No, we all start at square one and search for beliefs which ‘feel’ true throughout our lives. Remember back to Chava in Gan Eden. She saw the tree was good for food. This was her imagination – her yetzer hara, and it formed a belief. She had never eaten from it so how could it be true that the tree’s fruit was good for food. The tree is also known as the tree of doubt because man became confused about what was good (truth) and evil (falsehood). Beliefs have a time and a place, but quickly fade out of existence when their time has passed. When all times have passed, there will be nothing left, save The Absolute Truth.

I respectfully disagree. Absolute truth exists, though I doubt it will ever be “found” or “discovered”. It’s not up for humanity to agree on. It is what is. Science is about finding and proving truth, but it is also about focusing on a facet of a subject. Once you’ve done that, you are already missing too much to understand what is. Though in that focused study, great observations are made that reveal bits of situational truth that in turn influence a discipline or in some cases an era.

What strikes me as interesting about your conclusion is that you believe truth is created by humanity — something formulated internally in response to external and internal factors and influenced by consensus rather than being something beyond human comprehension in its entirety.

With regards to humanity’s current general consensus about truth, I think your sentiment is inline. Although, I doubt if you had a full hall of people that they would come to an agreement about x. There would probably be a majority in agreement or else a hall of handpicked or like minded people.

I agree that no one knows truth in its entirety and we each have our own constructs about it that change depending on what we are taught, experience, hear, see or feel. But, the root of truth is not subjective.

How we got here and what is happening is not up for debate. What is up for debate is how we understand it, rationalize it and what we do with what we “know”.

Kamie you have a point. i should have said truth exists but probably we will never find it . only temporary pieces of it.
i believe there is absolute truth because i believe in God and how God rules is by some absolute ” truth” i am strugling to understand it. ( see my blog how i found my personal God)
but really my point was that we should not be so arrogant to claim we know what the truth is and monopolize it. that was my real point.

The truth is a concept that is defined and accepted by us human being. Events or observations are tested against this concept and a determination is made “based on standards accepted in our societies ” to determine truth or untruth.

There is no such thing as absolute truth…..it is either truth or untruth. However, during the course of our existence, the classification of these events or observation may be reclassified and thrown into the compartment that we call truth or untrue. So you are correct when you speak of the changes, only that it is the classifications that is likely to change at any time but not the construct. …and if we are aware of this then it assist in accelerated learning.

2. The Human Understanding Level – mankind has been progressively understanding what was previously unknown but did exist. That is why it is progressive revelation. We solve problems and gain understanding from it progressively. That is how it works…Einstein did not say he had it all figured out..it was progressive.

So to your point about people being arrogant because they think they have the absolute truth on something…this of course relates to their perceptual filters, life experience and the part of the elephant they are referring to..

Now to the arrogance – If I know the truth about something and my grandson does not know that same truth…I will not be arrogant…my knowledge if superior or more complete is an obligation…the NT is very clear about this…”speak the truth in love.” – arrogance about anything is not love, it is self-indulgence.

People who know much if they are honest about it, realize that their own understanding points out how much they still do not know..

Sometimes simple things can be truth or not in direct meaning. It is easy to ask did somebody take your lovely pen or not. This is about the fact. So, if somebody say not but he/she did, it will be untruth. In direct meaning. So it made situation worse, uncertain and sometimes more dengerous, because in simple meaning it will be no long term decisions.

If we make a step aside from simple facts, it can be philosophy meanings. For example “I didn`t take your pen because I didn` even mention it” – true in dao philosophy, false in facts. The matter was about exect area of speaking. Also because of the nature of words, it can cover much more then open, so it needs really good skills to use it correctly. Etc. In Dr.Adizes lectures it was 3 curcles: Is, Will, Should, I guess it is one of the best tools to determine what exectly somebody means talking about truth.

I’ve waited one week to comment. My first reaction to the conclusion that “truth is relative” was anger, perhaps incredulity. Upon reflection, it seems as though “truth” must be defined. Now if one proves syllogistically that a conclusion is valid, the resulting conclusion is true. Now if, in the future, the major is shown to be faulty, that conclusion is no longer valid. Similarly, if the minor condition shows flaws, the conclusion is lacking validity. While it is desirable to listen to opposing views and dialogue about them vehemently, it doesn’t seem to suggest that one or the other view is a “truth”. However, when someone offers a conclusion as a truth, a fact, and that fact later is found faulty, then has that person not be untruthful?

Years of negotiating with people of various ethnic backgrounds and mores have shown that a deal made, a contract signed is only represented by the conditions at the time of shaking hands or signing. If the calendar date changes, they are fully justified in not continuing the agreement. This relative notion makes dealing with such people very difficult.

It seems that “relativity” in truth can only result in chaos, carried to an extreme. Could this be the “slippery slope” upon which we find ourselves as a world? Just wondering!!

Dear Brother
Before we try to understand “What is Truth” it is important to understand “what is Right’ and whether Truth is always right or is it vice versa.
And then what is more important ? to be Truthful or to be Right.
Truth is factual and based upon certain explainable occurrences or events . Truth is automatically changed when there is change is facts or these events. Truth per se is not subjective but the underlying factor is subject to changes so it appears that Truth is subjective.

Services

Let’s connect

Please note:

The insights presented in these blogs are the personal insight of Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes and do not necessarily express the opinion or position of the Adizes Institute or its staff individually or as a group.

DISCLAIMER: The insights presented in these blogs are the personal insight of Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes and do not necessarily express the opinion or position of the Adizes Institute or its staff individually or as a group.